Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, because there was a Latin patriarch in Constantinople at that time.

Are you admitting collusion?

 

[josie_L]

Are you admitting collusion?

I admit nothing.

On a more serious note, know that I love you, so God bless you brother!! I’ll be praying for you (I hope you don’t mind).

p.s. I would love you more if you still remained Catholic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My answer is in something I wrote and shared with you previously. Pay close attention to the Greek terms explained a few paragraphs down, okay?

No skimming!

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

Let’s do the passage justice, ah? Let’s keep reading:

John 21:20 Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” 21 When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!”

The difference between to lead and to rule is that to lead is to guide, where as to rule is to own. We are owned by Christ and we are lead by the Apostles, of which Peter was the leader.

We cannot serve 2 masters.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

The One body has spoken. One Bishop cannot go against what the One Body has spoken.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I admit nothing.

On a more serious note, know that I love you, so God bless you brother!! Know I’ll be praying for you (I hope you don’t mind).

p.s. Although I would love you more if you still remained Catholic.

Thank you so much my dear sister, know that I love you as well and I value your friendship. And that I don’t mind at all your prayers. In fact, I am honored that you should intercede for me to our Lord. If there is something I truly need is prayers (Don’t we all? ) My prayers are with you as well.

 

[josie_L]

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

The One body has spoken. One Bishop cannot go against what the One Body has spoken.

No, the pope cannot go against the whole episcopate, if that is what you are implying, however, it is imperative that the bishops throughout the universal Church obtain the cooperation and consent of the bishop of Rome as visible head, i.e., of all the bishops in the Church, his cooperation and consent is absolutely necessary.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you so much my dear sister, know that I love you as well and I value your friendship. And that I don’t mind at all your prayers. In fact, I am honored that you should intercede for me to our Lord. If there is something I truly need is prayers (Don’t we all? ) My prayers are with you as well.

Thanks, I need them, but for different reasons.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no need to refute Peter being given the keys. Many would say that the rock is Peter’s confession and that all of the Apostles received the keys. That’s including saints that Catholics often cite as supporting their claims. Here is a well known example that I bet you’ve never heard before.

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he has another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform, nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty.” -St John Chrysostom Homily on the Gospel of John

newadvent.org/fathers/240101.htm

So the good Doctor of the Church doesn’t agree with you that Peter alone received the keys. If I was to use Catholic apologetic methods I could use this quote to argue St John was infallible and him and his successors have supreme authority over all of us. But as I said that’s not really all that relevant except to show that the modern Catholic interpretation was by no means unanimous as some would have us believe. Far from it actually. But you have to show that the keys equal personal infallibility and immediate and supreme authority over the entire Church.

The apostle, John, was infallible. St. John Chrysostom was not. Chrysostom says that John the Apostle had keys, but I would simply ask him to show me proof of this.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The apostle, John, was infallible. St. John Chrysostom was not. Chrysostom says that John the Apostle had keys, but I would simply ask him to show me proof of this.

John had copies made for him after the agape incident.

 

[Randy_Carson]

See, here’s the thing, folks: Cavaradossi and Isaiah and Seraphim all sound really authoritative when they are arguing against an ignorant Catholic like me.

But then someone like Josie or LionHeart777 shows up, and the tide of battle begins to turn.

You EO offer a bunch of ECF’s who appear to deny this and that Catholic position.
We Catholics offer a bunch who appear to support them.

You EO quote a bunch of canons and councils which appear to deny this or that Catholic position.
We Catholics quote a bunch of canons and councils which appear to support them.

It appears to be a stalemate, a draw at best.

So, I just go back to the Sacred Scriptures, open them up, and ask everyone to look carefully at what the Word of God actually says. When I do that, I believe my understanding is guided by the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic faith, and nothing that I have proposed is at odds with either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition. Surely you must believe the same! Show me verse by verse why I’m wrong.

Could someone from the opposing camp simply open up your Bible and explain to me why Peter is not the rock? Examine the Greek text. Consider the topography of the location where Jesus gave the teaching. The name change from Simon to Peter. The whole shebang. And then tell me why Peter is not the rock. Or the Shepherd of the entire flock. Or the Royal Steward. I have verses. What do you have that is inspired text?

And why I should give preference to YOUR ECF quotes over MY ECF quotes?



See, EO and Protestants are quick to highlight all the corrupt popes in history, but no once stops to consider that Eastern patriarchs, being human, are just as subject to temptation as the patriarch of Rome. Why is it not possible that YOUR Church has been led from time to time by men who were corrupted by worldly influence and power and simply rejected the supremacy of Rome in attempt to aggrandize themselves?

Even the Apostles James and John sought the seats next to Jesus…maybe the Patriarchs of the East in times gone by were no less eager to attain the seats of honor at the Master’s banquet.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It appears to be a stalemate, a draw at best.

Draw is denied. Play on. Check and mate in 2 moves.

And why I should give preference to YOUR ECF quotes over MY ECF quotes?

You are missing a glaring fact.

I have quoted nothing but Ecumenical Church Councils and Official Catholic Church documents and Councils. And from Catholic sources.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Draw is denied. Play on. Check and mate in 2 moves.

If that were true, Isaiah, then why didn’t Catholicism dry up and blow away 500 years ago?

You might win this argument, because I might play poorly. But that does not mean that a better player would not make quick work of your attack.

You are missing a glaring fact.

I have quoted nothing but Ecumenical Church Councils and Official Catholic Church documents and Councils. And from Catholic sources.

I am not missing it; I’m simply discounting your presentation because I do not know whether or not the quotes are taken out of context or simply misinterpreted by you. You’ve put a lot of time and energy into developing your pet theory; I don’t plan to invest too much more into debunking it.

Josie or some other Catholic more knowledgable than myself might find your arguments completely bogus. Frankly, with all due respect to you, I’m pretty sure no one in the Vatican will be losing much sleep over your string of quotes tonight or any time soon. I know I won’t.

But hey, maybe you should write a book. You could make some money. Or have your head handed to you.

Seriously, do you think you of all people have finally stumbled onto the Achilles’ Heel of Catholicism with your litany of canons and councils? And you accused ME of being egotistical a few posts ago?

One last question: why does your Religion say “discerning” instead of “catolico” now?

Seems to me that you can safely change that again to “Orthodox” since you have accepted all their arguments against the papacy. And you don’t have to worry about being tarred and feathered with the Crusades or the Inquisition.

So, what’s the hold up?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If that were true, Isaiah, then why didn’t Catholicism dry up and blow away 500 years ago?

You might win this argument, because I might play poorly. But that does not mean that a better player would not make quick work of your attack.

I am not missing it; I’m simply discounting your presentation because I do not know whether or not the quotes are taken out of context or simply misinterpreted by you. You’ve put a lot of time and energy into developing your pet theory; I don’t plan to invest too much more into debunking it.

Josie or some other Catholic more knowledgable than myself might find your arguments completely bogus. Frankly, with all due respect to you, I’m pretty sure no one in the Vatican will be losing much sleep over your string of quotes tonight or any time soon. I know I won’t.

But hey, maybe you should write a book. You could make some money. Or have your head handed to you.

Seriously, do you think you of all people have finally stumbled onto the Achilles’ Heel of Catholicism with your litany of canons and councils? And you accused ME of being egotistical a few posts ago?

One last question: why does your Religion say “discerning” instead of “catolico” now?

Seems to me that you can safely change that again to “Orthodox” since you have accepted all their arguments against the papacy. And you don’t have to worry about being tarred and feathered with the Crusades or the Inquisition.

So, what’s the hold up?

Thank you for sanctifying me… Although the ad hominem is not appreciated, not at all.

 

[Seraphim73]

No, a minority of self aggrandizing bishops disagree with me. Moreover, at the ecumenical council of Ephesus, Philip the Presbyter stated:

Why is it every time a bishop resists Rome they are self aggrandizing and every time a pope claims authority for themselves it’s not?

No, it did not, in fact, Sardica did not grant anything, i.e., it only formalized what had already been custom, i.e., appeals to the pope in Rome from clerics throughout the universal church were already in place and in practice.

Appeals to a primatial see are nothing unusual. That is still the way the Orthodox Church operates today. What do you say to the canon from Chalcedon granting appellate authority to Constantinople? I would also point out that the canons from Sardica only grant appellate authority to Rome whereas this canon grants to Constantinople authority to be a court of first instance if the dispute involves a metropolitan.

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried. - Canon IX of Chalcedon

Pope St. Leo, along with many other saints/fathers of the Church would attest that the see of Rome was and always shall be head of the earthly church due to Scripture and Tradition, and not because of canon law. And I never said that papal authority did not increase over time, I’m simply making the case that papal supremacy actually did exist prior to the schism.

But the question is how did those fathers behave? You can easily see many of those same fathers saying things and behaving in ways that show they did not believe Rome had anything close to the authority it claims today. Greek rhetorical writing was always elaborate and full of flourish. You can see that clearly if you read anything written about the emperor or many other bishops. As an example here is the full title of the Patriarch of Alexandria.

“His Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, All Egypt and All Africa, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Prelate of Prelates, the Thirteenth of the Apostles and Judge of the Universe”.

Is the Patriarch of Alexandria really the “judge of the universe”? See how this style was used? The problem is Catholics take the hyperbole and flourish to be literal.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for sanctifying me… Although the ad hominem is not appreciated, not at all.

There was no ad hominem. I simply asked two questions:

1. Do you seriously believe you have found the argument that will prove Catholicism wrong after all these years? If so, you SHOULD write a book. Serious biz. (If not, then you might dial it back a wee bit.)
2. Why are you still discerning if you have embraced all of the anti-Catholic arguments of the Orthodox?

 

[phil19034]

Needless to say, the East has not agreed to the canons of the West after the Great Schism. Which is exactly my point.

The Western developments are not ecumenical. They lack the consent and agreement of the other Sees in order to be binding (Matt 18).

If that were true, then both the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have to believe that all Councils after the Church of the East left (not to mention the Oriental Orthodox Church).

Some parts of the East (granted not a large part) either never left communion with Rome or have returned to Rome. So we (and only we) have Communion with some members from ALL of the Rites.

 

[rcwitness]

The Eastern Orthodox have schismed from the one true Church, so I hardly think it’s fair to say that we cannot hold ecumenical councils because of its voluntary absence/division from the Catholic Church. It’s like saying that because the non-Chalcedonians are no longer part of our Church that any and all councils after Ephesus are null and void, moreover, we do have an Eastern presence in our Church.

p.s. Canon 28 was proposed when the Church was still one and whole (for the most part), therefore, to assume that it was accepted universally by the Church is hogwash. It wasn’t.

If that were true, then both the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have to believe that all Councils after the Church of the East left (not to mention the Oriental Orthodox Church).

Some parts of the East (granted not a large part) either never left communion with Rome or have returned to Rome. So we (and only we) have Communion with some members from ALL of the Rites.

These are a couple of points of which the concepts have been coming to mind. If the EO wont come together in a “whole Council” then they are not eligable to say what the Council does determine.

While Isaiah has provided some compelling arguement for a “seemingly” contradictory papal development than what the very early Councils settled on, it still ends up with an interpretation of either Orthodox development, or corrupted development.

I personally see the valid Traditions of these churches coming to a bind, and the Tradition which was established by Christ to overcome schism (namely the primacy/supremacy/immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) became a stumbling block for the Eastern and Oriental churches.

Everyones concerns here would be resolved by a Great Council, and it seems that the lack of “participation” from the Orthodox is disallowing this.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

These are a couple of points of which the concepts have been coming to mind. If the EO wont come together in a “whole Council” then they are not eligable to say what the Council does determine.

While Isaiah has provided some compelling arguement for a “seemingly” contradictory papal development than what the very early Councils settled on, it still ends up with an interpretation of either Orthodox development, or corrupted development.

I personally see the valid Traditions of these churches coming to a bind, and the Tradition which was established by Christ to overcome schism (namely the primacy/supremacy/immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) became a stumbling block for the Eastern and Oriental churches.

Everyones concerns here would be resolved by a Great Council, and it seems that the lack of “participation” from the Orthodox is disallowing this.

If they are “seemingly” contradictory, perhaps you can offer how the Papacy and be reconciled with the Ecumenical Councils from the Unified Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not missing it; I’m simply discounting your presentation because I do not know whether or not the quotes are taken out of context or simply misinterpreted by you. You’ve put a lot of time and energy into developing your pet theory; I don’t plan to invest too much more into debunking it.

Instead of addressing the facts and arguments you call them: “my pet theory”

Josie or some other Catholic more knowledgable than myself might find your arguments completely bogus. Frankly, with all due respect to you, I’m pretty sure no one in the Vatican will be losing much sleep over your string of quotes tonight or any time soon. I know I won’t.

Instead of addressing the facts and arguments your counter is the Vatican and you losing sleep… very relevant.

But hey, maybe you should write a book. You could make some money. Or have your head handed to you.

Again addressing my person and not the argument.

Seriously, do you think you of all people have finally stumbled onto the Achilles’ Heel of Catholicism with your litany of canons and councils? And you accused ME of being egotistical a few posts ago?

You were the one who thought the thread was about you. I have done nothing but to present facts.

One last question: why does your Religion say “discerning” instead of “catolico” now?

What does that have to do with the arguments I’m presenting? Again, you go against my person.

Seems to me that you can safely change that again to “Orthodox” since you have accepted all their arguments against the papacy. And you don’t have to worry about being tarred and feathered with the Crusades or the Inquisition.

So, what’s the hold up?

Is there a stop to you going against my person?

FORUM RULES:

CONDUCT RULES

• Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and **crude **or sexually-explicit language. See the Concierge Desk sub-forum for more information.
• Inappropriate or offensive user names, profile entries, or pictures are not permitted.
• Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (including replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
• Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
• Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
• Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.

 

[Seraphim73]

These are a couple of points of which the concepts have been coming to mind. If the EO wont come together in a “whole Council” then they are not eligable to say what the Council does determine.

While Isaiah has provided some compelling arguement for a “seemingly” contradictory papal development than what the very early Councils settled on, it still ends up with an interpretation of either Orthodox development, or corrupted development.

I personally see the valid Traditions of these churches coming to a bind, and the Tradition which was established by Christ to overcome schism (namely the primacy/supremacy/immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) became a stumbling block for the Eastern and Oriental churches.

Everyones concerns here would be resolved by a Great Council, and it seems that the lack of “participation” from the Orthodox is disallowing this.

We have come together in lots of councils so I’m not sure what you are referring to. And it seems to me the hypertrophy concerning the Bishop of Rome has been cause for more schisms than anything else in history.

 

[phil19034]

Needless to say, the East has not agreed to the canons of the West after the Great Schism. Which is exactly my point.

The Western developments are not ecumenical. They lack the consent and agreement of the other Sees in order to be binding (Matt 18).

Please read the below webpage regarding Canon 28

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_are_the_other_patriarchs_dependent_on_rome.php

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople actually apologizes to Pope St. Leo regarding Canon 28.

I also find it interesting that of the 3 original patriarchs + Jerusalem & Constantinople: Rome is the only See left that is still predominantly Christian and Catholic.

• Alexandria --a Muslim city, which had been predominantly Monophysite before that.
• Antioch – Ditto; and a city that no longer exists, with its descendants living in Damascus and a third of them answering to Rome.
• Jerusalem --a Muslim and Jewish city, where few Christians even live anymore.
• Constantinople --another Islamic city with a tiny Christian minority.

And I find it also interesting that it was the Catholic Church which reaches all over the world, not just the Roman Rite, but all the other Rites with are part of the Church.

Food for thought.

Anyway this website: 2lungs.com is a great site.

God Bless.